Optomized S5 SSE3

Brian
Brian
Joined: 25 Mar 06
Posts: 22
Credit: 80237
RAC: 0

RE: RE: That's certainly

Message 39590 in response to message 39589

Quote:
Quote:
That's certainly been my experience with the S5 WUs so far. Previously my Macs would get anything between 35% and 250% of what they claimed, according to the 'luck of the draw' in the quorum, but now they're perfectly consistent.
Well, but you and the fools minusing my post don't get it, that here the credit is pre-granted by the server and you get, what the server decided. Rosetta uses the credit claimed by the client based on the benchmark to grant the credit. If you don't know or understand the difference, then never mind... ;)

The difference is that you somehow think it's unfair to use a slow box and get lower credits even though the faster box did more actual calculations.

I'm still astounded that people get so worked up over some fictitous point system that only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people in this world would ever know or give two flips about.

ErichZann
ErichZann
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 120
Credit: 81582
RAC: 0

RE: Well, but you and the

Message 39591 in response to message 39589

Quote:
Well, but you and the fools minusing my post don't get it, that here the credit is pre-granted by the server and you get, what the server decided.

So, whats the problem about it?

Ulrich Metzner
Ulrich Metzner
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 113
Credit: 963370
RAC: 0

RE: The difference is that

Message 39592 in response to message 39590

Quote:
The difference is that you somehow think it's unfair to use a slow box and get lower credits even though the faster box did more actual calculations.

As i already said, you (too) don't get it, so i stop wasting time to try to explain this to people who simply don't (want to) understand...

Aloha, Uli

Jord
Joined: 26 Jan 05
Posts: 2952
Credit: 5779100
RAC: 0

RE: RE: The difference is

Message 39593 in response to message 39592

Quote:
Quote:
The difference is that you somehow think it's unfair to use a slow box and get lower credits even though the faster box did more actual calculations.
As i already said, you (too) don't get it, so i stop wasting time to try to explain this to people who simply don't (want to) understand...


Let me try this again... :-)

- No information from the BOINC client, neither runtime nor benchmark nor FLOPs count, is used for granting credit. It's totally based on information on the server side, i.e. on the FLOPs estimate the WU generator writes into the database (based on the number of templates it writes into a Workunit).

- The FLOPs estimation is passed to the App, so that with recent enough BOINC clients it will also claim the right amount of credit to make this transparent to the users, i.e. that they can see which credit they will be granted when the result is reported.

The latter doesn't work with older (4.xx) or some non-official BOINC clients, but that doesn't matter for the granted credit.

Ulrich Metzner
Ulrich Metzner
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 113
Credit: 963370
RAC: 0

RE: Let me try this

Message 39594 in response to message 39593

Quote:
Let me try this again... :-)
(...)

This applies to SETI and now also to Einstein, correct - i never queried that!
But at Rosetta you are the only one to crunch the WU (so no quorum!) and you yourself alone determine in the settings how long the WU will run on your computer (up to 4 days! - independend of the actual speed!). It is very different at Rosetta, cause the cruncher is able to reuse already crunched results from the ongoing run to make more precise predictions on the particular protein. So it is unpredictable on the server side how long and how intense the actual crunching takes place. So it is only fair, to take the benchmark as the actual base for granted credits. That was my point - is it really that difficult to understand?

Aloha, Uli

Jord
Joined: 26 Jan 05
Posts: 2952
Credit: 5779100
RAC: 0

RE: That was my point - is

Message 39595 in response to message 39594

Quote:
That was my point - is it really that difficult to understand?


No need to minus me for it... I was posting it for the crowds on Einstein again, since it's still a thing that some people cannot follow in the changes between S4 and S5.

(I was trying to help you, but hey... ;))

Ulrich Metzner
Ulrich Metzner
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 113
Credit: 963370
RAC: 0

RE: No need to minus me for

Message 39596 in response to message 39595

Quote:
No need to minus me for it...

I can't prove it, but believe me, i never use the + or - buttons for anything. Indeed i now will give you a plus just to prove it! ;)

Aloha, Uli

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6534
Credit: 284703502
RAC: 110557

RE: I can't prove it, but

Message 39597 in response to message 39596

Quote:
I can't prove it, but believe me, i never use the + or - buttons for anything. Indeed i now will give you a plus just to prove it! ;)


Well we have had a 'phantom' minuser or two about recently! :-)
I can't for the life of me deduce what was their problem though ( the posts didn't seem contentious to me ).
Ah well ....
Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...

... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal

ersatzjim
ersatzjim
Joined: 9 Dec 05
Posts: 117
Credit: 3982042
RAC: 0

It seems very strange to me

It seems very strange to me that people can't understand this credit system. It couldn't more simple.

- On the server side it is determined that work unit "X" is going to be granted "Y" credits if it is accurately crunched.

- Slower machines take longer to chew through the unit but get the same credits as faster machines.

- For goodness sake, it's the same as a granola bar. The factory determines the number of calories you'll intake from the consumption of the bar but some people chew and swallow faster than others.

What in the world could be more simple?? How could there possibly be confusion on this matter?

Jim

Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquents.
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451

[B@H] Ray
[B@H] Ray
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 621
Credit: 49583
RAC: 0

RE: What in the world could

Message 39599 in response to message 39598

Quote:

What in the world could be more simple?? How could there possibly be confusion on this matter?

Jim


This system is very simple and easy to understand, just some others don't like it.

Could be made simpler, just count the number of WU's like they did in SETI Classic. Would you ever hear a lot of complaints then, and some say why did he get those 9 short units when I got none of them. With the new system you get about the same per Hr. with the short or long units, just that some liked getting more credit than they requested, and feel cheated when they don't.

People who are here just for the credits will leave for other programs. The ones here for the science will stay. Some like 2 or 3 programs, they just have to decide which is more important to them and adjust there time accordingley.


Try the Pizza@Home project, good crunching.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.